Dino's (and others) Soft Tissue

[Guest shiloh357]

Kind of long and does not answer the question at all.  But hey, nice try though.

 

You asked me to provide evidence for my claim that the notion of an old earth goes back to 18th century philosophy during the Age of Reason.  I provided it.

 

Let's make it a bit simpler for you.  OEC in its most basic form is the belief that the "days" in Genesis 1 are not 24 hour periods.   The debate over the meaning of the days of Genesis goes back to at least the 1st century, so if you want to show that OEC has it roots in anti-biblical thought you would need to go back at least that far. 

 

Not really.   The debate over the meaning of the days had to do with whether or not they were allegorical or not.  They were not having YEC or OEC debates.  They were having debates over what the days meant on a deeper mystical/spiritual level.

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

 

You asked me to provide evidence for my claim that the notion of an old earth goes back to 18th century philosophy during the Age of Reason.  I provided it.

 

 

I asked for evidence it was a result of 18th century philosophy.

 

Not really.   The debate over the meaning of the days had to do with whether or not they were allegorical or not.  They were not having YEC or OEC debates.  They were having debates over what the days meant on a deeper mystical/spiritual level.

 

 

Isn't that what we are doing, you say they are literal and we say they have a deeper meaning.  The actual age one views the earth is not really relevant, the debate is about the meaning of Genesis 1.  Anyone that thinks it is beyond 6000 years or so would have to be in the OEC camp.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

You asked me to provide evidence for my claim that the notion of an old earth goes back to 18th century philosophy during the Age of Reason.  I provided it.

 

 

I asked for evidence it was a result of 18th century philosophy.

 

 

And I provided it.

 

Not really.   The debate over the meaning of the days had to do with whether or not they were allegorical or not.  They were not having YEC or OEC debates.  They were having debates over what the days meant on a deeper mystical/spiritual level.

 

 

Isn't that what we are doing, you say they are literal and we say they have a deeper meaning.  The actual age one views the earth is not really relevant, the debate is about the meaning of Genesis 1.  Anyone that thinks it is beyond 6000 years or so would have to be in the OEC camp.

 

No, we are not having a debate on the deeper meaning.   The conflict is over whether or not the days are long epochs of time or if they are literal 24 hour days like the Bible says they are.  

 

That is not the same as the ancient debate over mystical/allegorical meaning of the days.

[nebula]

So the biblical worldview, which had dominated the Western nations for centuries, was rapidly being replaced by a naturalistic worldview. And it was into the midst of these revolutions in worldview and the reinterpretation of the phenomena of nature and the Bible that the scriptural geologists expressed their opposition to old-earth geology in the first half of the nineteenth century.

 

What this shows is that people were more inclined to interpret evidence based on what the evidence showed rather than interpreting it is such a way as to fit a 6000 year-old time frame.

[other one]

 

You've been here long enough to know the answer to that question......

 

Maybe some of us need a refresher bite from that tree Adam and Eve ate from....

 

I think, rather, we need a dousing of love.

 

We're so busy "being right" that none of us are putting love first.

 

 

I really wish we had a tree for that......

[Guest shiloh357]

 

So the biblical worldview, which had dominated the Western nations for centuries, was rapidly being replaced by a naturalistic worldview. And it was into the midst of these revolutions in worldview and the reinterpretation of the phenomena of nature and the Bible that the scriptural geologists expressed their opposition to old-earth geology in the first half of the nineteenth century.

 

What this shows is that people were more inclined to interpret evidence based on what the evidence showed rather than interpreting it is such a way as to fit a 6000 year-old time frame.

 

 

No, it doesn't.  Did you read the article?  The assumption of the old earth came before science.  The part you quoted is talking about different worldviews, not scientific views. It is talking about a biblical worldview vs. a naturalistic worldview, not biblical vs. scientific.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

What I said is simply the facts.   If you go back and study, you will find that the OE view predates science and is goes back to the philosophers of the "age of reason."  Evolution needs an old earth to operate, and OEC simply latches on to the assumptions of the scientific world.  But its roots historically go back to unbelievers, not Christians trying to be faithful to God word.

Could you please supply some evidence to support this last statement?

 

I agree. The statement comes across as if scientist were looking for reasons not to believe in the Bible rather than putting the pieces together and seeing what came together.

 

Yeah, that is about the size of it.

[anthonyjmcgirr]

daaaaaaad they're fighting again!

 

can we ever just discuss a topic without it reverting back to OE vs. YE.  Start a thread, if one doesn't exist, and keep there.  It gets these discussions off track.

[Guest shiloh357]

daaaaaaad they're fighting again!

 

can we ever just discuss a topic without it reverting back to OE vs. YE.  Start a thread, if one doesn't exist, and keep there.  It gets these discussions off track.

This IS a OEC vs. YEC thread.   The OP is a sub topic of that debate.

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

What I said is simply the facts.   If you go back and study, you will find that the OE view predates science and is goes back to the philosophers of the "age of reason."  Evolution needs an old earth to operate, and OEC simply latches on to the assumptions of the scientific world.  But its roots historically go back to unbelievers, not Christians trying to be faithful to God word.

Could you please supply some evidence to support this last statement?

 

I agree. The statement comes across as if scientist were looking for reasons not to believe in the Bible rather than putting the pieces together and seeing what came together.

 

Yeah, that is about the size of it.

 

 

You are all over the place here.  First you claim that the assumption of the old earth came before science and then you agree an old earth is the result of scientist looking for reasons not to believe in the Bible.  You cant have it both ways.